In the complex world of IT portfolio management, the specter of "project drift"—often manifesting as scope creep or schedule slippage—is a constant concern. For us as senior leaders, it is paramount to recognize the early warning signs and understand the underlying causes. It is only with this visibility that we can protect our investments, ensure predictable delivery, and ultimately achieve our strategic objectives. It's not just about managing tasks; it's about understanding the interplay of scope, schedule, resources, and the undeniable human element.

Decoding project drift: The core indicators

From my experience, project drift typically signals itself through three primary indicators:

  • Shifting scope: This is the most classic form of drift. It occurs when new milestones, deliverables, or requirements are introduced that were not part of the original forecast or plan. This isn't always malicious; it often stems from evolving business needs or a desire to enhance functionality. However, unchecked, it can fundamentally alter the project's trajectory.
  • Schedule slippage: This refers to deviations from the planned timeline. As we progress through project phases, leading indicators like phase completion rates against baseline, or critical path analysis, can quickly signal trouble. Drift here can be triggered by internal project dependencies or, critically, dependencies of external projects or teams. A clear source of truth for tracking these interdependencies, both within and across projects, is therefore indispensable.
  • Resource or funding fluctuations: When critical resources (human or financial) are unavailable, it is often a downstream indicator of drift. Organizations that manage budgets tightly might have quarterly reviews that reallocate funds. These reallocations can have a direct impact on the team’s ability to maintain planned resource levels (full-time equivalents or contractors). Similarly, the unexpected departure of a key individual with specialized skills and critical context—think of the vital roles many of us play—can force a re-evaluation of scope and schedule.

The "good enough" versus "best-In-class" dilemma

Beyond these tangible indicators, there’s a subtler, yet equally powerful, driver of project drift: the human factor. Engineers, developers, and many IT professionals are inherently driven to build the best possible product. When presented with an opportunity to enhance functionality, incorporate newer technologies, or solve a novel problem that's logically related to the project's mandate, the inclination to "improve" is strong.

This natural pursuit of "best-in-class" solutions, while commendable in spirit, is often at odds with the strategic reality of "good enough." As one of our peers wisely noted, we often need good enough IT, legal, or HR, rather than chasing "best-in-class" in every domain. Striving for perfection can lead to scope creep, consume precious resources, and distract from delivering the core, essential outcomes that truly drive business value and ROI. It means we might not hit all the minimum viable product (MVP) requirements because we're busy adding bells and whistles.

Navigating the drift: A strategic imperative

The challenge, then, is to translate high-level mandates into actionable, well-defined scopes and then rigorously manage them. This requires the following approaches:

  • Proactive monitoring: It is crucial to implement systems that provide clear visibility into scope, schedule, and resource utilization. Tools that offer visualizations and critical path analysis can flag deviations early.
  • Dependency management: Establishing robust processes to track and manage both internal and external project dependencies is a non-negotiable requirement.
  • Honest prioritization: It is essential to cultivate a culture in which difficult decisions are made, and a clear line is drawn between "in" and "out" of scope. Saying "no" is as important as saying "yes."
  • Understanding the "why": It is key to recognize that well-intentioned individuals often drive drift by aiming for perfection. Guide teams toward delivering on the core mandate.

Key takeaways for IT leaders

Here are some key strategies to apply:

  • Identify the triggers: Be aware of the three core indicators of drift: scope changes, schedule slippage, and resource/funding impacts.
  • Manage interdependencies: A unified view of project dependencies is critical for anticipating and mitigating upstream issues.
  • Embrace "good enough": Balance the pursuit of excellence with the strategic need for timely delivery of core functionality.
  • Empower decision-makers: Ensure clear ownership and accountability for scope and priority decisions.
  • Focus on the core mandate: Keep the original strategic intent of the project front and center to resist unnecessary expansion.

By understanding these dynamics and implementing disciplined portfolio management practices, we can better navigate the complexities of project execution, mitigate risks, and ensure our technology investments consistently deliver against their strategic promise.